What about the FACT of evolution?

The only “FACT” of evolution is that which has been observed, tested, and has predictive value—that would be MICRO-evolution (changes in the gene pool of a population). The mistake many Darwinists make is conflating the FACT of micro-evolution with the theory of MACRO-evolution (the theory that all life evolved from one common ancestor). As Dr. Jerry Bergman points out, “Darwinists assume that a large number of small mutations can account for macroevolution. This conclusion is not based on experimental evidence, but on the assumption that the evidence for microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution. The empirical evidence, however, is clear -- neither macromutations nor micromutations can provide a significant source of new genetic information. 'Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues' (Margulis and Sagan, 2002)." For the sake of argument we could place our stock in the theistic evolutionist camp like Francis Collins, and most recently even the pope, but there are holes in this theory that seem to be ignored by its advocates that need to be ratified:

#1 Abiogenesis: The unobservable, unverifiable, unscientific faith that life comes from non-life.​

​

#2 The discovery of DNA/the information enigma—Scientists agree that DNA is similar to a computer code/program or a language. Programs have PROGRAMMERS.

P1: All specified information (to perform a function) comes from programmers.P2: DNA has specified information (to perform a function).C: Therefore, DNA came from a programmer.

#3 The Cambrian Explosion The biological big bang!

We do not see new and emerging species that are transitioning from previous ones. There is not one single set of transitional fossils that reveal one species evolving into another one. And what comes after the Cambrian layer? The very same thing—basically fossilized remains that have virtually no differences. During this supposed 50 million year time period, these fossils remain absolutely stable with no signs of mutations and no fossilized remains showing mutations.

Darwin and his contemporaries were aware of this problem with the fossil record some 150 years ago, but they believed that the fossil record had been insufficiently sampled up to that time. Their “belief” was that paleontological research in the future would more adequately sample the fossil record and show it to be more in line with evolutionary theory. They were wrong! Exactly the opposite happened. After a century and half of excavating fossils from the strata we have found the problem to be worse, not better. Contrary to the tree of life depicted in the school books, the fossil record depicts exactly the opposite story.

So why would scientists still believe in the theory of macro-evolution with it being so discordant with such strong evidence to the contrary? Consider the revealing words of a Harvard geneticist who is one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. His intellectual dishonesty and bias is deafening:

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”--Richard Lewontin

This shows naturalist scientists believe Darwin's theory in spite of the evidence. That is why many leading creation scientists keep referring to evolution as a philosophy of science or even a religion. This belief is so strong in academic circles that scientists are chided if they even question evolution publicly. Why are they ridiculed? They are ridiculed because the only alternative to evolution is creation (God). Some like to pretend there are a variety of options in explaining origins. This is simply not so. The options often presented are merely shades of the two primary options, and scientists know this.